The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a member of the armed forces to disability pension under the Central Civil Service (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, emphasizing the presumption of sound physical and mental condition upon entering service, the onus of proof on the claimant, and the principle of continuing wrong and recurring wrongs in service-related claims.

JUDGMENT

Lok Pal Singh, J. - Petitioner has filed instant writ petition seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to grant him disability pension since the date of his discharge from services of the Assam Rifle.

2. Brief facts, leading to filing of the writ petition, are that the petitioner was initially inducted as Rifleman in Assam Rifles on 23.08.1957. Petitioner had rendered 06 years 09 months and 22 days service with the Assam Rifles. Petitioner was discharged from Assam Rifles in the month of August 1964 on the ground of disability. He was sanctioned gratuity after his discharge in the year 1965. Respondent no. 3 in his letter dated 25.09.1965 mentioned that the petitioner is not entitled for invalid pension as per the C.S.R. Rules. After receiving the said letter dated 25.09.1965, petitioner approached the higher authorities, but the authorities concerned did not paid any heed on the request of the petitioner. It is averred that after the discharge of petitioner from the Assam Rifles, his mother fell seriously ill and her life could not be saved after considerable medical treatment which went on several years due to which the petitioner came under mental trauma. It is further averred that after the death of her mother the petitioner left his family and denounced the society and started living in a shack of the forest of District Chamoli. Thereafter, he lost connection with the society and the outside world.

3. It is further averred that in the year 2016, the petitioner completed about 80 years of his life and now is not in a position to sustain his livelihood. Ultimately, petitioner contacted the Ex Soldier Organization, Assam Rifles, Gairsain, Chamoli and approached respondent no. 2 through the said Organization seeking disability pension. The Assam Rifles Ex Servicemen Association Centre, Chamoli vide letter dated 01.03.2016 forwarded the application of the petitioner to the respondent no. 2. In reply, respondent no. 3 issued a letter dated 06.05.2016 categorically mentioning that all the old service records in respect of personnel of Assam Rifles, who were retired / discharged from service on various grounds, had already been destroyed. However, it was mentioned that at the time of discharge the petitioner was paid Rs.492/- as retirement gratuity. After receiving the said letter, petitioner moved a representation to respondent no. 2 mentioning the details of his service tenure. The petitioner mentioned that he suffered injury on his left leg during digging of trench and he was hospitalized in the Unit Hospital and thereafter referred to Victoria Medical College, Agartala for further treatment, where his left leg was amputated, and he was discharged from Assam Rifles on medical ground.

4. It is alleged that the respondent department did not grant any pensionary benefits to the petitioner which was being granted to the other disabled ex soldiers. The petitioner came to know about said fact when a camp was organized by the Assam Rifles at Dehradun and officers of the Assam Rifles supplied a brochure in regard to disability pension. It has been mentioned in said brochure that - "(a) Disability pension is granted in addition to service element for medically boarded out disability cases with attributability to or aggravated by service. Declared 01% and above (b) Disability pension is granted @ 30% of pay for 100% disability, for lesser reduced proportionately. (c) LMC personnel discharged at their own request or proceeding on retiring / superannuation pension or claiming after five years of disablement are not eligible."

5. It is contended that at the time of induction in Assam Rifles, the petitioner was physically and medically fit. It was during the course of his service with Assam Rifles that the petitioner was declared disabled which was purely attributable to his service as Rifleman. It is also contended that though the writ petition is being preferred after about